Evaluation Factors - Linen Follow-on.docx
DOCX document 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Wright Patt Club Linen Service Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA860120R0020
About this file
This document outlines the evaluation factors for a solicitation seeking linen services. The contractor will be required to provide all necessary transportation, labor, materials, equipment and supervision to provide various linens and laundry and pressing services for those linens used at the Wright-Patterson Club building on Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Proposals will be evaluated on technical and price factors, with technical being rated as either acceptable or unacceptable, and price being evaluated for completeness, unbalanced pricing, fairness and reasonableness, and total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be calculated as the sum of extended prices for the base period and option periods I through IV, plus a prorated amount for the maximum six-month extension period. The contract will be awarded to the responsible offeror submitting an acceptable technical proposal and the lowest total evaluated price that is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Synopsitation - Solicitation document.pdf | ||
| General Provisions - 24 Jan 2020 approved.pdf | ||
| PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT Linen UPDATED.docx | DOCX document | |
| Synopsitation - Solicitation document.pdf | ||
| EFT FORM - 2018.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FA8601-20-R-0020
EVALUATION FACTORS
1. The factors that shall be used to evaluate proposals are Technical and Price, as expounded below. All evaluation factors are equal in importance; however, a proposal is un-awardable at any price if, after final evaluation, the Technical factor receives a rating of “Unacceptable.” The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror who submits a proposal that (1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; (2) that receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical evaluation factor; and (3) that submits the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending upon (1) the quality of proposals received and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the pricing of proposals received.
All evaluation factors other than price or cost, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.
| Rating |
| Description |
Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.
Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation.
a. Technical: Proposal must clearly demonstrate that the offeror is capable of meeting all of the performance standards specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).
b. Price: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) fair and reasonableness, and (4) TEP.
(1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Attachment 1—Additional Instructions to Offerors.
(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices proposed on different Contract Line Items Numbers (CLIN) for the same or similar services and/or supplies in the same or similar quantities and with respect to option pricing. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the option prices are significantly unbalanced or that otherwise unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.
(3) Fair and Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) or DFARS 215.371-3 if only one offer is received.
(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as:
(i) The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for the base performance period and option periods I through IV; and
(ii) To account for the maximum six-month extension possible under the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will take the proposed price of the final option period, prorate it to a six-month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINs (base performance period and option periods I through IV). The resulting amount will be the TEP. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).
The spreadsheet below illustrates calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. The spreadsheet is provided for illustration purposes only. Prices reflected in the spreadsheet are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this solicitation or any other solicitation for the same or similar requirements.
2. Evaluation Process:
(a) The Government will initiate concurrent evaluation of all evaluation factors on all proposals. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of a proposal including whether any proposal deficiency can be rectified and whether any uncertainty can be resolved. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government.
(b) If pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, and in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable; the CO may open discussions and may continue discussions as long as, in the Government’s judgment, the deficiency is rectifiable or the uncertainty is resolvable.
(c) For the purpose of conducting discussions, if the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable.” At the conclusion of discussions, if the Technical factor is rated “Unacceptable” or if any deficiency or uncertainty relative to the proposal has not been unresolved, evaluation of that proposal will be considered final. The entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.
(d) For the purpose of award without discussions, if pursuant to initial evaluation, the Government rates the Technical factor as “Unacceptable” or if the Government determines that there is some other deficiency or uncertainty relative to an offeror’s proposal, notwithstanding that any deficiency may be rectifiable or any uncertainty may be resolvable, the entire proposal will be rated “Unacceptable,” the initial evaluation will be the final evaluation, and no further consideration will be given to that proposal for award.
3. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.
image1.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .